Free The Uighurs

by hilzoy

Yesterday, a federal appeals court ruled (pdf) that it cannot order the release of the seventeen Uighurs who remain at Guantanamo, and that no court has the power to do so. The case will presumably be appealed to the Supreme Court. But there is absolutely no reason for President Obama to wait on the courts' rulings. 

The Uighurs have been cleared of all charges. Uighur communities in this country are prepared to help them out if they are released. The Uighurs are not, and never were, enemy combatants. Some of them are starting their eighth year of captivity. During much of that time, their families did not know whether they were alive or dead. Some of them have children they have never met.

President Obama does not need the court's permission to order their release. He could do it today, and he should. 

Seven years of wrongful captivity is more than enough.

Comments

[Henry]

Obama could also order the immediate end of solitary confinement at Guantanamo and other U.S. prisons, because long-term solitary confinement drives people mad and therefore constitutes torture. He could also pardon everyone in federal prison on drug possession charges, since I presume that he would not think the nation better off if he'd been convicted of drug possession when he was young and prevented from attending law school. Obama should realize that, having the power of the presidency, he becomes responsible for the evils that he could order stopped but does not order stopped. And why do we still have troops in Iraq, one month after the inauguration? It is now Obama's illegal war.

[Jesurgislac]

President Obama does not need the court's permission to order their release. He could do it today, and he should.

He could have done it on January 21st, and he should.

But he didn't. And while it would be nice to hope that he does, soon, it would be dreadfully embarrassing for the previous administration if he simply overturns all their criminal decisions about their kidnap victims and PoWs. And worse: it would be dreadfully embarrassing for Obama, since he does not intend to have their crimes prosecuted, if he makes clear that he is well aware that what they did is criminal.

It was probably impossible to elect a President who would want to have his predecessor prosecuted, no matter what crimes his predecessor had committed: the principle that the President of the United States is above the law is too valuable to give up.

I expect - which is something - that the Uighars will eventually be released. Obama did say he'd close down Guantanamo Bay, and one would hope that this isn't just going to be a cosmetic exercise in which the prisoners are transferred to other jails elsewhere.

[Sebastian]

And at this point we should offer them citizenship (since they can't really go anywhere) and some sort of settlement.

[Henry]

The court's decision confirms that the United States has a new form of government. We have changed from a republic to a dictatorship. If the president can hold innocent people in prison, and only he can release them, then he is a dictator. The right to habeas corpus, which the Supreme Court upheld last June, does not exist if the president can keep you in prison anyway. Granted, the people of the United States get to choose their dictator every four years (unless the Supreme Court decides to intervene), but we live in a dictatorship.

[Brett Bellmore]

But it would annoy the Chinese, and we can't afford to do that.

Literally can't afford to do that; Massive deficits have consequences...

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

And at this point we should offer them citizenship (since they can't really go anywhere) and some sort of settlement.

What Seb said.

But it would annoy the Chinese, and we can't afford to do that.

I believe you are correct Brett. I'm afraid we're just going to have to take our lumps on this one. If it is any consolation, the sight of the Communist Chinese govt., the GOP and Fox News all complaining from the same song sheet should be entertaining. At least we'll have that.

[Nell]

Hilzoy may have been going to post on this anyway, so I'm not looking for a hat tip, but my comments on this in a previous thread contain links to other background material, notably the ACLU's. Please read it and call the White House to urge Pres. Obama to free the Uighurs today.

[Nell]

Brett: Massive deficits have consequences

TLT, I'm shocked to see you writing off the lives of seventeen people who have communities in the U.S. waiting to welcome them. "take our lumps on this"?? WTF?

The massive deficits, Brett; that wouldn't have anything to do with a trillion-dollar war and massive tax cuts for the rich, would it?

(There's also a failure to distinguish between the gargantuan trade deficit, encouraged by "free trade" corporatist neoliberals in both parties for the last twenty years and the gargantuan fiscal deficit, which is almost entirely the work of the Republican regime of the last eight years, with spineless acquiescence by Dems.)

Deficits have consequences, but accepting this kind of bullying doesn't have to be one of them.

[Turbulence]

Um Nell? I think ThatLeftTurn agrees that we should give them citizenship even though it might displease the Chinese government. His comments about the Chinese government and Fox News reading from the same song sheet don't make any sense otherwise.

I'm still not clear on why giving them citizenship will bother the Chinese government. China doesn't want them and giving them citizenship settles a debt the US has to them, so why complain? We're not talking about visionary military leaders here....

[Brett Bellmore]

What writing them off? That was bitter sarcasm. Our leaders have gotten the country so far in to hock with the Chinsese that they're afraid to piss them off, when, on the merits, we ought to be pissing them off routinely on any number of issues.

It's disgusting.

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

TLT, I'm shocked to see you writing off the lives of seventeen people who have communities in the U.S. waiting to welcome them. "take our lumps on this"?? WTF?

Good lord, what kind of monster do you take me for? I meant we have to release the Uighurs, and if the Chinese decide to sanction us in some way as a result of displeasure with our having released them, then we will have to bear those costs like it or not. "Take our lumps" meant the latter.

I thought the context of my second statement was fairly clear from my 1st statement ditto'ing what Seb said. Sorry if I was unclear.

[Ugh]

I'm still not clear on why giving them citizenship will bother the Chinese government.

I would guess the Chinese gov't's position on this is "We consider these Uighur's and others like them terrorists that are planning a 9/11 style attack on China. Therefore, should you let them go ,we will cease cooperating with you in Middle Eastern matters, such as Iran, as well as on North Korea. Also, we're not sure we're in much of a position to keep buying your T-bills, in fact we're considering selling a couple hundred billion on the open market, but no decision has been made just yet, if you understand. Plus, Taiwan sure looks like nice place for a beach landing." Etc., etc., etc.

It would be nice if the only thing Obama and the U.S. had to suffer from releasing the Uighurs into the U.S. was bleating nonsense from the Rush-led wingers, but it ain't so.

Obama should do what Sebastian says anyway, but I can see how other things may be blocking the path.

[Turbulence]

I would guess the Chinese gov't's position on this is "We consider these Uighur's and others like them terrorists that are planning a 9/11 style attack on China.

China may say stuff like this for public consumption, but do you think the government actually believes this? I mean, I understand that their policy is to make life miserable for as many individual Uighurs as possible, but surely they don't care about a handful of Uighurs at Gitmo, right? Is there any evidence these guys pose any danger to anyone at all?

Therefore, should you let them go ,we will cease cooperating with you in Middle Eastern matters, such as Iran, as well as on North Korea. Also, we're not sure we're in much of a position to keep buying your T-bills, in fact we're considering selling a couple hundred billion on the open market, but no decision has been made just yet, if you understand. Plus, Taiwan sure looks like nice place for a beach landing." Etc., etc., etc.

Maybe I don't have the right perspective, but I have trouble envisioning the Chinese government changing policy on something as massive as hundreds of billions of dollars or the start of a hot war in the Pacific based on how treat a handful of Uighurs, especially when there is no reason to think these guys are dangerous. Is the government of China really so irrational when it comes to Uighurs?

[Ugh]

China may say stuff like this for public consumption, but do you think the government actually believes this?

I don't know, do you think Dick Cheney believed in the one percent doctrine? Or that he believed terrorists were such significant threats to the US that it justified all sorts of law-breaking etc.? Why can't the Chinese gov't be just as irrational?

Maybe I don't have the right perspective, but I have trouble envisioning the Chinese government changing policy on something as massive as hundreds of billions of dollars or the start of a hot war in the Pacific based on how treat a handful of Uighurs, especially when there is no reason to think these guys are dangerous.

Face saving? I suppose they wouldn't want to start a hot war. But I can see them withdrawing all cooperation, and also stop buying T-Bills, or at least slowing down their purchases.

But really, it's just my speculation as to what might be on the table with respect to Obama's decision to release the Uighurs or not. Maybe they really are afraid of the "OBAMA RELEASED TERRORISTS IN THE US!!!!" story line.

[Nell]

Apologies, TLT; I read too hastily and did misunderstand you.

Brett, I wasn't taking you as advocating that we not accept the Uighur prisoners into the U.S., but as a prediction that the Obama administration won't, with Chinese objections part of the reason why.

If the administration doesn't bring the Uighurs here and soon, it will be another piece of the ever-growing Kremlinology to figure out if which is the more significant obstacle -- domestic right-wing political screeching or Chinese retaliation.

Failing to act because of either of these would be deeply shameful.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I think Turbulence has it right. There may be some noise, but I doubt China is going to cause any major upheavals over the Uighurs' release.

Arguments to the contrary seem to assume that on the various issues involved China is motivated solely by kind feelings and a spirit of generosity towards the US.

Does anyone think the Chinese are buying T-bills to do us a favor?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett, I wasn't taking you as advocating that we not accept the Uighur prisoners into the U.S., but as a prediction that the Obama administration won't, with Chinese objections part of the reason why."

Ok, then. I did get across my meaning.

[J. Michael Neal]

But it would annoy the Chinese, and we can't afford to do that.

I believe you are correct Brett.

I don't. I think this gets blown way out of proportion, because I think China needs to buy our t-bills at least as much as we need to sell them. I have yet to see any evidence that they can afford to end their mercantilist policies, and buying our debt is a necessary component of them.

When someone owes you $2 billion in your currency, that's their problem. When they owe you $2 trillion in their currency, that's your problem.

[Detlef]

Well, if Crooks and Liars were right with their summary (Jan 25, 2009):

Vice president Joe Biden told CBS that he didn't expect detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to be released inside the U.S. "We won't release people inside the United States because all but one, I believe, is not an American citizen," said Biden.

In a sense that would be consistent with the new administrations´s desire not to investigate the Bush administration. There certainly would be some renewed publicity about Guantanamo if some of them were released inside the USA.

Much easier to try and send them elsewhere. Kind of like, "out of sight, out of mind".
Or am I too cynical?

[d'd'd'dave]

a bit of contrary information:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/04/the_uighurs_in_their.php